[commlaw] 5/31 Privacy vs. Commercial Interests

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (If you haven’t finished it yet.)
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7. (If you didn’t read it last week.)
  • If you have finished both of them, read something below.

Important Cases:

  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (decided May 16, 2016).
  • In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y., 2001).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • What is “big data”? If “big data” collects only anonymous data, does it still pose any threat to our privacy? (敏瑄)

[commlaw] 5/24 Privacy vs. Free Speech

Required Reading:

  • Andrew R.W. Hughes, Does the United States Have an Answer to the European Right to Be Forgotten?, 7 No. 1 Landslide 18 (2014).
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7.

Important Cases:

Additional Reading:

  • Spiros Tassis & Margarita Peristeraki, The Extraterritorial Scope of the “Right to Be Forgotten” and How This Affects Obligations of Search Engine Operators Located Outside the EU, 2 Eur. Networks L. & Reg. Q. 244 (2014).
  • Meg Leta Ambrose, A Digital Dark Age and the Right to Be Forgotten, 17 No. 3 J. Internet L. 1 (2013).
  • James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151 (2004).
  • Rodney A. Smolla, Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Gather News, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1097 (1999).
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Balancing the Rights of Privacy and the Press: A Reply to Professor Smolla, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1152 (1999).
  • Guardian, Right to be Forgotten (a good portal, with news updates and commentaries).
  • Will Oremus, Why Is This Obscure New York Times Story Banned From Google Results in Europe?, Slate, (Oct. 6 2014).
  • Mark Scott, Google Alerts British News Outlets About Deleting Their Links, N.Y. Times (July 3, 2014).

Homework:

  1. Please brief us on the EU Court of Justice case “Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.” (翊軒)

[commlaw] 5/17 Privacy vs. Law Enforcement / Anti-Terrorism

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (excellent overview on both surveillance and data aggregation issues).

Important Cases:

  • U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2015).
  • Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 999 (2014).
  • Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013).
  • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
  • Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
  • In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  1. What is ECHELON? Do you think there is any legitimate justification for our government to deploy something of the same nature domestically? If so, what legal safeguard should be in place to protect our privacy? (欣茹)
  2. Please comment on the recent tug of war between Apple and FBI over iPhone cracking. (麗謹)

[commlaw] 5/10 The Backbone of Network Economy

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, The Internet Under Siege, Foreign Policy, Nov.-Dec. 2001, at 56. (In case you didn’t read it for the 3/22 class. If you did, read the cases or some of the additional material below.)

Important Cases:

  • Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir., 2014).
  • Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir., 2010).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  1. What do e-publishing, e-banking and Industry 4.0 have in common, and how do they differ? Where do Taiwan’s chances lie? (翊軒)
  2. What is Internet peering and transit? Does the arrangements of peering and transit have any bearing on network economy? (敏瑄)

[commlaw] 5/3 Industry 4.0

Required Reading:

  • Scott R Peppet, Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent, 93 Tex. L. Rev. 85 (2014).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • Why did the Go matches between AlphaGo and Korean Grand Champion Lee Sedol become a huge sensation? What social changes and/or legal challenges can you imagine that might arise from the progress of artificial intelligence?

[commlaw] 4/26 E-banking

Required Reading:

  • Reuben Grinberg, Note, Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency, 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 159 (2012). (This is the required reading only because it’s short and easy to understand, relatively speaking. The first two articles in the Additional Reading list would be more rewarding if you’re interested in the subject.)

Additional Reading:

  • Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Bitproperty, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 805 (2015).
  • Kevin V. Tu & Michael W. Meredith, Rethinking Virtual Currency Regulation in the Bitcoin Age, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 271 (2015).
  • Matthew Kien-Meng Ly, Note, Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”: Examining the Regulatory Framework for Bitcoin and Virtual Currencies, 27 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 587 (2014).
  • Carl Kaminski, Online Peer-to-Peer Payments: Paypal Primes the Pump, Will Banks Follow?, 7 N.C. Banking Inst. 375 (2003).

Homework:

  • What’s “Bank 3.0”? Why are Taiwanese banks suddenly racing toward Bank 3.0? What legal issues might arise from such endeavors?

 

[commlaw] 4/19 E-publishing

Required Reading:

  • Ali M. Stoeppelwerth, Antitrust Issues Associated With the Sale of E-Books and Other Digital Content, 25-SPG Antitrust 69 (2011).

Important Cases:

  • U.S. v. Apple, 952 F.Supp.2d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).
  • Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., 985 F.Supp.2d 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
  • Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F.Supp.2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Additional Reading:

  • Niva Elkin-Koren, The Changing Nature of Books and the Uneasy Case for Copyright, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1712 (2011).
  • Nicola F. Sharpea & Olufunmilayo B Arewa, Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the Ipod Fairplay Drm Controversy, 5 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 332 (2007).
  • 邱詩芳,無體數位著作環境第一次銷售原則之探討,中央大學產經所碩士論文 (2015).
    .

Special Presentation:

  • What’s wrong with U.S. v. Apple?, by 芊儒.

[commlaw] 3/29 Advertising and the Fourth Estate

Required Reading:

Important Cases:

  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d. Cir. 2011).
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d. Cir. 2004).
  • 旺旺中時購併案。
  • 旺旺中嘉購併案。
  • 遠傳中嘉購併案。

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • Why are (some) people still objecting to the 遠傳中嘉購併案 since there is no Chinese capital involved?

 

[commlaw] 3/22 Breaking Down the Silos

Required Reading:

Important Cases:

  • Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Additional Reading:

  • Douglas C. Sicker & Lisa Blumensaadt, Misunderstanding the Layered Model(s), 4 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 299 (2006). (The Westlaw version doesn’t have graphs; get it from HeinOnline.)
  • Tim Wu & Christopher S. Yoo, Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate, 59 Fed. Comm. L.J. 575 (2007).
  • Adam Thierer, The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities, 21 CommLaw Conspectus 249 (2013).
  • Susan P. Crawford, The Internet and the Project of Communications Law, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 359 (2007).
  • RFC3724 – The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End.
  • Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, 94 Geo. L.J. 1847 (2006).
  • 張民萱,頻譜資源分配之政策 ─以開放模式為目標,中央大學產經所碩士論文 (2013).

Homework:

  • Please comment on the ongoing “must-carry” controversy in Taiwan.

 

[commlaw] 3/15 Sex and Violence: Regulating “Improper” Content

Required Reading:

  • Christopher M. Fairman, Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga of FCC Indecency Regulation, 2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 567 (2013). (Read at least Part II – IV.)
  • EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. (Read parts related to Protection of Minors.)
  • FCC consumer guide on “Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts“.

Important Cases:

  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 US __, 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012).
  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009).
  • Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
  • FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
  • Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
  • Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1970).

Additional Reading:

  • Lili Levi, “Smut and Nothing but”: The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2013).
  • Kristin L. Rakowski, Branding as an Antidote to Indecency Regulation, 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2009).
  • John C. Quale & Malcolm J. Tuesley, Space, the Final Frontier–Expanding FCC Regulation of Indecent Content onto Direct Broadcast Satellite, 60 Fed. Comm. L.J. 37 (2007).
  • Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting? Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15 CommLaw Conspectus 431 (2007).

Homework:

  • What is your opinion about our current Internet content regulation?